Saturday 28 Jun 1845 (p. 3, col. 1-3) Part 2 SUSPECTED CASES OF POISONING. ----- ADJOURNED INQUEST ON MR. GRAHAM. ----- CLOSE OF THE INQUIRY. [continued] Mr. CARRICK-Is it necessary that I should read over the depositions in the case once more? The jury intimated that they did not require it to be done. The CORONER then addressed the Jury. He said,-Gentlemen, the evidence in this case has at length been brought to a close, and before you decide upon your verdict I may be allowed to make a few observations. It must have struck you as a somewhat remarkable coincidence that two deaths have occurred in the same family within a very short period of each other, and from the same cause-poison. This circumstance naturally excites a suspicion that the same person who perpetrated one may have been guilty of the other; but it is necessary for me to caution you that before you arrive at the conclusion that they are both the acts of the same individual you must be well satisfied of the circumstances on which you think his guilt is founded. Notwithstanding a very protracted enquiry, in the course of which much labour has been bestowed, and every exertion made, the death of Mr. GRAHAM is still involved in considerable mystery, and the evidence elicited from the various witnesses called, although it has done much to direct our suspicions against one individual, has, it must be acknowledged, failed to clear up all our doubts as to whether he is legally guilty. There are, however, two important facts which we may consider as clearly established,-first, that Mr. GRAHAM died from the effects of poison; and, secondly, that that poison was contained in the cake which he partook of on the Thursday night previous to his death. Being satisfied on these points, you will have to consider the same questions which arose in a previous enquiry. First, under what circumstances the arsenic was put into the cake,-whether it was put in wilfully or accidentally. To lead you to a proper conclusion you have, as yet, no positive evidence; and it will be necessary, therefore, to weigh carefully the statements made by the various witnesses which bear upon the point. It is beyond doubt that the cakes were made by Mrs. GRAHAM. Was she the person who put the poison into them? Saving, perhaps, her own reluctance in giving evidence, we have no proof that she put the arsenic there either wilfully or by accident; indeed a long life spent with her husband without the least unhappiness, as far as we are enabled to judge, and the fact that she was affected by the poison on both occasions, seem strongly and decidedly to negative the former presumption, and the absence of all evidence to show that there was ever arsenic in the house, equally forbids the latter. We must, therefore, see whether there be any other person who could have a motive for committing the crime, and who had likewise the opportunity of perpetrating it. I have already remarked upon the coincidence of there being two deaths by poison in the same family. There is another remarkable fact to which our attention has been directed, and it is, that Mr. GRAHAM's death recently, was preceded by another ineffectual attempt to poison him in the beginning of the year; and it is a fact worthy of note that both then and on the fatal occasion John GRAHAM, of Kirkandrews, deceased's son, was at his fathers' house. This is a circumstance which tends to cast suspicion on him. It is in evidence that he was present when his father partook of the potato pot which caused his illness, and he was also clearly connected with the meal which caused his wife's death. These then, are circumstances which tend to criminate John GRAHAM. But there is another part of the evidence which, if it be correct, must also be taken into consideration-namely, that John GRAHAM himself, deceased's son, also partook of the potato-pot, and was ill in consequence. Mr. ANDERSON, the surgeon, a gentleman entitled to the fullest credit,-says the fact was so, that John was ill and even worse than his father and mother,-which would seem to discountenance the supposition that he was privy to the arsenic being put into the potato-pot. Again, gentlemen, in reference to the cakes we have the evidence of Mrs. GRAHAM and Jane THOMPSON shewing that he had no opportunity of seeing the dough of which the cake was made, that it was in the set pot all the time he was there, and that it was never exposed to his view. How far that evidence is entitled to implicit credit is for you to say. If they be stating the truth, it is an important fact in John GRAHAM's favour. Bearing that in mind it will be for you to enquire whether he had any particular object in visiting his father's house that day; for, gentlemen, when the facts do not present themselves before us in a satisfactory light, we must scrutinise the motives of his conduct. It is stated that it was to ask his mother to go to Newcastle; but it cannot fail to strike you as extraordinary that he should have given her such short notice of his contemplated visit, for he called at a time that would not allow her to make the necessary preparations for her journey, if she went by the train which John himself travelled, for even he had difficulty in reaching it in time. It may, however, be said, that they could have gone by a later train, which certainly, if such was his intention, rather weakens the objection. But let us pursue him on his journey. He leaves Grinsdale, and after calling at Kirkandrews for his carpet bag, goes direct to Newcastle. With what object? It is for you to consider whether the statement he made to you and to other persons as to the purpose of his visit-that he wished to look out for a place to keep cows-is probable and satisfactory, and founded on fact, or whether his object was not, in truth, to get out of the way, that he might not be present whilst his father and mother were enduring the agonies resulting from the poison. Well, he goes to Newcastle. You have evidence before you that his conduct was very strange. His intention was avowedly to visit his friends: now he does not appear to have visited them at all, but it proved that he spent the greater part of his time at the White Horse. You cannot have forgotten the description of his strange conduct at Haltwhistle-his coming down after the passing of each train without any apparent object-his intense anxiety to ascertain whether any one had come from Carlisle-his fear of going to the door, as though some one were in pursuit of him; all of which facts, you will remember, were deposed to by the landlady of the inn where he was staying, and by the station keeper. Nor ought we to forget the remarkable expressions made use of to Mr. WEIR, and his dilatoriness, after his arrival in Carlisle, to proceed to Grinsdale: for these, gentlemen, though they do not prove any fact which fastens guilt upon him, all tend to awaken our suspicion of his conduct. Connected with his visit to Newcastle is an important question for consideration, and it is, whether he bought any poison there. The evidence we have had before us, on Saturday and to-day, does not refer to his last visit; it has reference to a transaction supposed to have taken place some eight or nine months ago. Comparatively remote, however, as that period is, if we can establish that he purchased poison on that occasion it becomes a very important fact in reference to this case as well as to the other which we have already disposed of-involving, among other considerations, as we shall see, a material contradiction in his depositions. It is for you, gentlemen, to say whether it has been made out to your satisfaction that he is the person who bought the arsenic at Mr. SWAN's shop. [The Coroner here read the evidence of Mr. SWAN and son.] If you think his identity has been fully established, you bring home to him a lie, for, first, in his voluntary statement he declared most positively that he never bought or never had in his possession any arsenic, except five or six years since, when he bought a packet to dip sheep with, and used it all for that purpose; and, next, he told the druggist he wanted it to poison rats on board a ship. Now if he bought six ounces from Mr. SWAN eight or nine months ago, it is impossible that such a circumstance could have escaped his recollection. Then, gentlemen, as to the motive for committing the crime, presuming that he is the guilty party. We can only presume one motive-a desire to become possessed of the property of his parents. It is proved by Mrs. GRAHAM that her husband had made his will, but that the fact was unknown to any member of the family except herself. It is for you to consider whether the motive I have alluded to be reasonable or probable. Such, then, gentlemen, are some of the principal portions of the evidence which bear against John GRAHAM. It is only right that we should also inquire whether there is any other member of the family, or any individual whatsoever, against whom suspicion may fairly attach, and in what degree. The only members of deceased's household were himself and his wife. The question whether Mrs. GRAHAM was likely to have committed the crime I have already disposed of. There seems to be no ground whatever for supposing that deceased himself was cognizant of the presence of poison in the cake. I pass on, therefore, to Mr. Sibson GRAHAM, his younger son, who lives in the same village. I am not aware that he has been pointed at as the guilty party. There is, however, something connected with the potato-pot and the manner in which it was disposed of which is much to be regretted. There seems little doubt that it contained poison; and, looking to the effects experienced by those who partook of it, it does certainly seem strange that no steps were taken to have it analysed-to see whether it did or did not contain poison. If active measures had been adopted to solve that suspicion, important evidence might have been the result, and the life of John GRAHAM would, in all probability, have been spared. We have it proved that Sibson GRAHAM destroyed the potato pot, and that a cake also was destroyed by his wife's orders. Without intending for one moment to cast the least suspicion on him, I cannot but regret that he should have done so, for here is an act which has destroyed very important evidence. What his motive was, I cannot truly conjecture. The reason alleged with regard to the cake-that she was afraid the children might get them-is a very probable one: but with respect to the potato pot the same reason could not apply. There were no children about deceased's house, and the effect of the potato pot on those who partook of it ought to have induced an analysis. What seems also to call for remark is the fact that the dung hill which had only been partly led away before, was entirely removed by Mr. Sibson GRAHAM on the day before the inquest. I allude to these circumstances not because they establish any suspicion against him, for they do not, but rather because they have tended to throw difficulty in the way of our inquiry. I have now, gentlemen, glanced at the evidence as it affects all the parties who may be supposed to have had the opportunity of committing the crime. I must confess that, numerous as are the circumstances which have been elicited, we have as yet failed to throw any satisfactory light on the mystery we have been endeavouring to unravel: and when we consider the serious consequences which follow conviction in this and in a higher court, it behoves you not to found a verdict upon evidence that is not thoroughly conclusive. Undoubtedly, gentlemen, it is your duty to send for trial any party whom you may consider to have been clearly and satisfactorily proved to have been guilty of an offence; but recollect that if you find a verdict against a man in this court, he must necessarily take his trial in a superior court, and will, in due course, be either acquitted or convicted. If convicted, the ends of justice have of course been obtained, but if acquitted, he is acquitted for ever so far as the law is concerned, and no evidence, however conclusive, that might hereafter be discovered, could be made available against him. Therefore it is always a safe course for juries, when there is doubt in the matter, to return such a verdict as shall have the effect of keeping open the case until evidence shall have been procured which will more satisfactorily establish the case. Thus, in the case before us, should the party in custody be acquitted by the higher court of the crime of which you have found him guilty, and evidence by that time be obtained to establish against him the crime now under investigation, the enquiry can be resumed at any future time. If, therefore, you do not find sufficient evidence to bring home guilt to any party, it becomes your duty to return a verdict of wilful murder against some person or persons unknown. I have only to remark, in conclusion, that I have discharged my duty in this case to the best of my ability, and I have to thank you for the unwearied attention you have bestowed upon the enquiry. I do not doubt but your verdict will be one which is warranted by the evidence. The jury then consulted for a few moments, and The FOREMAN (Mr. MOSS) said the jury had agreed to the following verdict:- "That the deceased, John GRAHAM, died from the effect of poison wilfully administered to him; and the jury record their verdict of Wilful Murder against some person or persons unknown." The inquisition was then duly signed, and the proceedings terminated. The case continues to be the engrossing subject of interest in Carlisle and throughout the county.